On Mon, 24 Jan 2011, ais523 wrote:
> (The only change is the addition of "e has not already done so that
> quarter".) Now, if you cause me to make myself the holder of Pariah,
> then that prevents me from assuming any more offices that quarter; and
> if you install me directly, then it doesn't. Thus, the two actions are
> definitely different in that case.
>
> As it happens, the two actions lead to the same thing in the present
> ruleset. That doesn't mean that one being possible necessarily means
> that the other is possible, though, especially as they could lead to
> different gamestate down the line. (What if the entirely plausible
> amendment to rule 2276 shown above was made later on in this quarter?)
I agree with everything you say.
Where we disagree (or at least discussing) is that you seem to think
that I invoked something like:
"I cause R2324 to act on behalf of ais523 to make ais523 announce that
e assumes the Office, as e CAN due to R2276".
whereas I think I invoked something like:
"I cause R2324 to set the holder of the Pariah Office to ais523"
and the actual text was somewhere in between. I used the word "assume"
thus suggesting R2276 was involved, but I didn't talk about acting-on
behalf-of and the setting was something that R2324 CAN do. I didn't
make you announce that you assumed the office, I made you assume the
office (e.g. made you the officeholder). On the other hand, the liberal
use of that language may be interpreted as your version.
Does this capture the debate?
-G.
